1 F.Cas. 226 (C.C.D.C. 1850), 107, In re Aiken

Docket Nº:107
Citation:1 F.Cas. 226
Opinion Judge:CRANCH, Chief Judge.
Party Name:In re AIKEN 1 MacArth. 126
Attorney:Z. C. Robbins, for appellant.
Court:Circuit Courts, D. Columbia

Page 226

1 F.Cas. 226 (C.C.D.C. 1850)

1 MacArth. 126

In re AIKEN

No. 107

Circuit Court, District of Columbia

1850

Z. C. Robbins, for appellant.

OPINION

CRANCH, Chief Judge.

Appeal from the decision of the commissioner of patents rejecting the application of the appellant for letters-patent for improvements in submarine propellers. The supervision of the judge is limited to the points involved by the reasons of appeal.

The following are the reasons of appeal filed in the patent office: " 1. The reasons assigned by the commissioner for rejecting my application are irrelevant to the subject-matter under consideration, and therefore do not apply, and cannot be properly construed to meet the points in the case. 2.

Page 227

The commissioner erred in declaring that the patent granted to James Montgomery, August 7th, 1847, was a bar to my application. 3. The commissioner erred in declaring that the rejected application filed by Perry G. Gardner was a bar to my application. 4. The commissioner erred in declaring that the rejected application filed by John Finley was a bar to my application. 5. The commissioner erred in judging of the uses, advantages, and effects of the radical divisions in the cylinders placed in front and rear of the propeller, screw, or wheel operating in the centre cylinder. 6. The commissioner erred in declaring that the patent granted to Thomas Reiley, January, 1842, was a bar to my claims for the radical divisions in the cylinders. 7. The commissioner erred in declaring in his letter of rejection of the 27th of February, 1850, that the rejected application filed by John Finley in 1838 was a bar to my application. 8. The commissioner has not referred to any propeller made in the same way and manner, nor to any propeller proposing the same combination of the several parts, nor that is composed of so few pieces, or that is so little liable to get out of order, or that has the same action upon the water, or that produces the same effect, or will propel a ship or other vessel so fast with the same amount of power applied, or that will propel a ship across the ocean in so short a time. Neither has the commissioner referred me to any submerged propeller professing identity, similarity, or interference with my invention; consequently his references are irrelevant, and do not apply to the subject-matter under consideration, and therefore his decision is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP